As per the lore - Satan persuaded Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. She ate the apple and afterwards Adam did the same . When god came back, they told him - Satan told us to do so. But now, they had to leave the Garden of Eden.

This story is lifted from Mundaka Upanishad III.

Here's the Original, Undiluted Tale-

1.164.20 Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on.

1.164.21 Where the smooth-gliding rays, cognizant, distil the perpetual portion of water; there has the Lord and steadfast protector all beings accepted me, though immature in wisdom.

1.164.22 In the tree into which the smooth-gliding rays feeders on the sweet, enters, and again bring forth light over all, they have called the fruit sweet, but he partakes not of it who knows not the protector of the universe.

Atman became Adam and Jiva, Eve. Pathetic !

The FIG which eve ate is the fruit of the peepal tree ( FICUS ) -- the true botanical name today is Ficus Religiosa.

The old testament never spoke of apple ( from a fig tree ).

It is mentioned in RIGVEDA written 7000 years ago.

Even wikipedia mentions this truth now.

I have to say - It worked well in the west ( in eastern parts of the world people were either lured / forced to convert) , the reason being Savages could easily relate themselves with those Adam and Eve types - men and women running around naked in wild .

At 8/27/2016 4:02:06 PM, Durbodh wrote:Adam and Eve story is the basis of the Abrahamic religions.

As per the lore - Satan persuaded Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. She ate the apple and afterwards Adam did the same . When god came back, they told him - Satan told us to do so. But now, they had to leave the Garden of Eden.

This story is lifted from Mundaka Upanishad III.

Here's the Original, Undiluted Tale-

1.164.20 Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on.

1.164.21 Where the smooth-gliding rays, cognizant, distil the perpetual portion of water; there has the Lord and steadfast protector all beings accepted me, though immature in wisdom.

1.164.22 In the tree into which the smooth-gliding rays feeders on the sweet, enters, and again bring forth light over all, they have called the fruit sweet, but he partakes not of it who knows not the protector of the universe.

Atman became Adam and Jiva, Eve. Pathetic !

The FIG which eve ate is the fruit of the peepal tree ( FICUS ) -- the true botanical name today is Ficus Religiosa.

The old testament never spoke of apple ( from a fig tree ).

It is mentioned in RIGVEDA written 7000 years ago.

Even wikipedia mentions this truth now.

I have to say - It worked well in the west ( in eastern parts of the world people were either lured / forced to convert) , the reason being Savages could easily relate themselves with those Adam and Eve types - men and women running around naked in wild . : :

Where is your evidence that the Adam and Eve story originated with Mundaka Upanishad iii ?

Is it possible the Adam and Eve story was told in many different cultures like the story of the great flood?

Do you have any proof that these stories are true to begin with?

Could it be possible that the people on the earth are just outcasts from alien planets?

It would be nice if it looked like a close parallel to A+E but it looks a bit of a stretch. It seems that geographic barriers got in the way of too much crossing over of ideas between the ancient Mesopotamian and Indic peoples and the closer parallels are between the Bible and Sumerian/Babylonian myths.

But is there is a yet more primitive common source? Interesting to contemplate but there is probably no way to know.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

I'd say more or less the same time. The OT was probably not written down until the time of the Babylonian exile in the 500's'BC and not put into a finished form until much later than that. That matches with estimate dates for the Upanishads pretty well.

Dating any pre-existing oral forms of the stories is of course impossible.

At 8/28/2016 7:07:55 AM, keithprosser wrote:I'd say more or less the same time. The OT was probably not written down until the time of the Babylonian exile in the 500's'BC and not put into a finished form until much later than that. That matches with estimate dates for the Upanishads pretty well.

Dating any pre-existing oral forms of the stories is of course impossible. : :

Man began writing down his thoughts thousands of years ago but all the earlier texts have been destroyed due to entropy. The only reliable source to understand the Adam and Eve story is to listen to the technology that our Creator used to create us and our experiences.

At 8/28/2016 7:00:20 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:The Upanishads were written long after the book of Genesis.

You are talking about Indian history written during British Rule.

At that time - Vedas & Upanishads were keeping in mind : The Aryan Invasion Theory.

DNA analysis and carbon dating tell an entirely different story.

QUOTE If the Indus Valley Civilization is not mentioned in the Vedas, it could be because the Vedas are older. And this would make the Vedas very old indeed, because the IVC sites of Bhirrana and Rakhigarhi date back to at least 7380 BCE. UNQUOTE

At 8/28/2016 7:00:20 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:The Upanishads were written long after the book of Genesis.

You are talking about Indian history written during British Rule.

At that time - Vedas & Upanishads were keeping in mind : The Aryan Invasion Theory.

DNA analysis and carbon dating tell an entirely different story.

QUOTE If the Indus Valley Civilization is not mentioned in the Vedas, it could be because the Vedas are older. And this would make the Vedas very old indeed, because the IVC sites of Bhirrana and Rakhigarhi date back to at least 7380 BCE. UNQUOTE

Vedas & Upanishads were written down around 5000 BC, but conveyed by word of mouth from 30000 BC to 4000 BC.

These were not accessible to the common folks of Bharat - -

leave alone uncivilized / immoral / western people who ate and bred like animals.

For you guys -

Bible is more than enough !

Why do you think this is important?

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

That depends on the programmers whose thoughts were used to create the technology that our creator used to program his creation with. Those of us connected to that technology that gives us life experiences can only be trusted as the Truth.

At 8/28/2016 7:07:55 AM, keithprosser wrote:I'd say more or less the same time. The OT was probably not written down until the time of the Babylonian exile in the 500's'BC and not put into a finished form until much later than that. That matches with estimate dates for the Upanishads pretty well.

Dating any pre-existing oral forms of the stories is of course impossible.

You might be correct. That time period is so very rich in philosophical output and worldwide revelation too, it's really quite amazing.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

At 8/28/2016 7:00:20 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:The Upanishads were written long after the book of Genesis.

Third time of asking, when was the book of Genesis written?

Depends on the source you believe. Some people believe around 500 BCE give or take 50-75 years. Some people believe 500 years before that.

The two scriptures in question probably were written down about the same time or within 100 years or so of each other. I wouldn't rule it out. It isn't particularly important to me.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

At 8/28/2016 7:00:20 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:The Upanishads were written long after the book of Genesis.

Third time of asking, when was the book of Genesis written?

Depends on the source you believe. Some people believe around 500 BCE give or take 50-75 years. Some people believe 500 years before that.

The two scriptures in question probably were written down about the same time or within 100 years or so of each other. I wouldn't rule it out. It isn't particularly important to me.

So you have no idea when it was written, but are quick to say it was written well before the Upanishads. No wonder you are called liar.

No one really knows for sure. History is not an exact science. If I was such a liar, would I be so quick to accept correction?

The real question is, why are you so threatened by me?

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

At 8/28/2016 7:00:20 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:The Upanishads were written long after the book of Genesis.

Third time of asking, when was the book of Genesis written?

Depends on the source you believe. Some people believe around 500 BCE give or take 50-75 years. Some people believe 500 years before that.

The two scriptures in question probably were written down about the same time or within 100 years or so of each other. I wouldn't rule it out. It isn't particularly important to me.

So you have no idea when it was written, but are quick to say it was written well before the Upanishads. No wonder you are called liar.

No one really knows for sure. History is not an exact science. If I was such a liar, would I be so quick to accept correction?

The real question is, why are you so threatened by me?

So why claim that Genesis was written "well before" the Upanishads?

I mistakenly believed that the Upanishads were written later, because they were in fact compiled later and a great many of the Upanishads that I have read were written post common era.

It was an honest error. It's got very little to do with deceit. I am not too proud to admit when I am in error. Can't say the same about you. Every time you accuse me of anything, the only thing I see is you projecting on me.

Now are you going to talk about the topic or are you intent on derailing this thread because of your personal vendetta against me?

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,

At 8/28/2016 7:00:20 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:The Upanishads were written long after the book of Genesis.

Third time of asking, when was the book of Genesis written?

Depends on the source you believe. Some people believe around 500 BCE give or take 50-75 years. Some people believe 500 years before that.

The two scriptures in question probably were written down about the same time or within 100 years or so of each other. I wouldn't rule it out. It isn't particularly important to me.

So you have no idea when it was written, but are quick to say it was written well before the Upanishads. No wonder you are called liar.

No one really knows for sure. History is not an exact science. If I was such a liar, would I be so quick to accept correction?

The real question is, why are you so threatened by me?

So why claim that Genesis was written "well before" the Upanishads?

I mistakenly believed that the Upanishads were written later, because they were in fact compiled later and a great many of the Upanishads that I have read were written post common era.

It was an honest error. It's got very little to do with deceit. I am not too proud to admit when I am in error. Can't say the same about you. Every time you accuse me of anything, the only thing I see is you projecting on me.

Now are you going to talk about the topic or are you intent on derailing this thread because of your personal vendetta against me?

Your error and apology are noted.

The Adam and Eve fable is completely laughable from whichever mythologies it originated.

You might be correct. That time period is so very rich in philosophical output and worldwide revelation too, it's really quite amazing.

I think it is interesting to speculate why the OT was written down at all. 'Written down' is probaby the wrong words, because it is generally agreed the OT represents the editing of several different documentary or oral sources into one (almost!) consisent tale. Much of the OT may represent re-edited material that is older, but some of the OT deals with people and events contemporary with the exile and the immediate post-exilic period and cannot date from before that.

It seems very likely to me the OT was written down to stablise it, to give it definte canoncial content and form that was resistant to change simplty by being in writing rather a easily mutable oral tradition. The reason was to preserve Jewish identity during the Babylonian Exile. The expected fate of exiles would be to eventually become acculturated into the culture they were embedded into. That is probably what happened to the 10 tribes of Israel who disappear from history after they were conquered and exiled by the Assyrians around 740 BCE.

The jewish royals were disempowered in exile, leaving the YHWHist priests free to define Jewishness as they saw fit. Thus they defined Jewishness in YHWHist terms, creating a grand national myth that succeeded in keeping keeping some form of Jewish identity alive.

In particular, Jewish identity was preserved by the hope of a return home. The promised land was an invention of the exiled priests. The myth was it was promised by God to Abraham - the reality is it was promised by the YHWHist priests to their exiled Jews. The tale of the escape from Egypt with its plagues was a gleeful allegory of what would happen to their present captors. The tale of the splendour of Solomon's temple was to 'remind' jews of their past glories (exaggerated!) and to what they would once again enjoy - providing they kept the YHWHist priests in clover, of course.

After 70 years the Babylonians were defeated by the Persians under Cyrus and the Jews did indeed return, but by then they had absorbed the myth as history, YHWH as their god and the YHWHist priests as their rightful rulers, albeit they ruled as Cyrus' agents.

For the next few hundred years the Jews were a poor and oppressed people under a succession of foreign conquerors, from Alexander to the Romans. The grand promises of the YHWHist priests rang hollow, and they in any case they had became a corrupt, privileged and elite class. The Jews did not identifiy with the myth of their former greatness and were open to the teachings of a new sort of prophet who did not promise grand military conquests and improvement of their earthly lot (which YHWHism had promised and failed to deliver) but of a posthumous paradise. The scene was set for the rise of Christianity.